Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Literati Quarterly (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr \ talk / 05:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Literati Quarterly
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article deleted after an AfD last year. Recreated now with 1 additional source (a brief article in the San Marcos Daily Record). Keep arguments on article talk page are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED. Still does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I would say the zeal to delete this page considering other less sources pages without third-party sources sighted shows a systemic bias on the part of the person requesting deletion considering that request for deletion was denied less than 24 hours prior. The publication has obviously grown since trying to have a page last year. Again, how is this publication any less significant than others established in the same year? Zarbe2015 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarbe2015 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Please review WP:NPA, thanks. As for the argument that there are other pages that are equally bad, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Perhaps the publication has grown since the creation of that vastly premature article of last year, but that is not reflected in the title. If you want to argue that this is notable, you need independent reliable sources about the magazine. As for the fact that "deletion was denied less than 24 hours prior", that was a G5 request and the admin handling that request judged that the new article was too different from the previous one for G5 to apply, hence this AfD. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How is an independent news article not reliable enough? If Wikipedia is to have these policies they should be applied evenly. You still have not explained how this publication is any less notable than others created in 2014. Zarbe2015 (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody says it's not reliable enough (although one may have some doubts for such a local paper). It just is not the in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources that WP:GNG requires. As for the other articles, WP has now almost 5 million articles. If you think those are all high-quality articles, you're dreaming. If you think that I can keep an eye on all of those, you're dreaming even more. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it explains very clearly why the argument that similar articles exist doesn't apply. If it would apply, then we would have no inclusion criteria at all any more. Feel free to propose those other pages for deletion, too, if they irritate you so much. In short, we don't need to demonstrate here that this magazine is "less notable than others created in 2014". What needs to be demonstrated is that this magazine is notable, regardless of any others. --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. There is possible sockpuppetry, as User:Zarbe2015 and User:Txcn1987 both are accounts that have primarily edited only this article (e.g. SPAs). The latter created the page in 2014 and the former re-created the page in 2015. LaMona (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The newspaper article says that the site has "spread like wildfire" but the Alexa stats don't support that - the site is somewhere in the 22 millionth level of web sites. By comparison, my modest personal site is in the 1.5 millionth, and the Iowa City Public Library is 300K. This dampens a bit the reliability of the newspaper article, which shows great enthusiasm for a local project, but may be biased. LaMona (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Biased, or simply didn't check their facts... --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * From General notability guideline:
 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
 * "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."Zarbe2015 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete under G4, nothing changed since the previous deletion. One "source" in the subject's hometown mentioned it, so what? The other 2 "sources" in the article are an advert and the subject's own website. Web and news searches yield nothing. Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.